it has run into problems in other states including texas and wisconsin along the same issues. can you get it enforced for this particular election? it doesn't mean it won't be there in the future. logically you could say, shouldn't a voter have to identify who they are to avoid fraud? the problem is, you have to give the voter an unit -- an opportunity to get the i.d. best election. >>trace: the judge rules it could cause people to lose their right to vote but did not expound on that. what was the intent? >>guest: the judge said, we are not going to have voter problems if you require an i.d. on reconsideration, and in talking to a number of voters who had trouble getting an i.d., he said well, maybe not this time around is what happened here leaving on the prospect for enforcing this in future elections. something on the order of 89,000 people in pennsylvania would nut have had the proper identification before, which is 1 percent of the voters, would not have had the proper identification for this election, is the tally. the judge said, let's hold off and not have it in force